Sticking out our Bureaucratic Tongues
The voters of the state in which I live (not “my state”), last year, passed a referendum forbidding insurance benefits to “same sex domestic partners” of state employees. Including faculty and staff at my university. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but it was a pretty substantial margin against the benefits.
So the University whined, and complained about “diversity”, and complained that it’d make it tough to attract all those brilliant gay researchers who will instead wind up at some rival school. (Not that I’ve heard of that happening. And if it had, it certainly would’ve made the paper.) And they sued to overturn the referendum, or block any action on it, or at least delay it, because surely the administration of a major university knows better than a couple million slightly-right-of-center voters, right?
And finally they agreed to abide by the law. Just barely.
Now it’s time to enroll for benefits for next year. What’s new? Now the benefits website very clearly points out that “SSDPs” will no longer be eligible for insurance benefits. We’re complying with the law – see? see?!
Of course, there’s a whole new category for eligibility: “Other Qualified Adult”. What’s an OQA?
1. Employee and Other Qualified Adult currently share a primary residence and have
shared a residence for at least 6 months.
2. Other Qualified Adult is not eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of
intestate succession in the state of ______*;
3. Neither Employee nor Other Qualified Adult is legally married in _____.
4. At least one of the following is true:
– Employee and Other Qualified Adult have a joint checking account; or
– Employee and Other Qualified Adult have a joint savings account; or
– Employee and Other Qualified Adult have a joint credit account.
5. At least one of the following is true:
– Employee and Other Qualified Adult have durable power of attorney for
health care for the other; or
– Employee and Other Qualified Adult have durable power of attorney for
financial management for the other.
6. The Other Qualified Adult has been designated as the primary beneficiary for at least
one of the following:
– A life insurance contract held by Employee; or
– The Employee’s will; or
– A retirement contract (including IRA, 401 (k), 403(b), or pension plan)
held by the Employee.
7. Other Qualified Adult and Employee cannot legally marry each other in ______.
*The following individuals do not fall within the eligibility criteria for Other Qualified
Adult:
· Spouse
· Children and their descendents (i.e. children, grandchildren)
· Parents
· Parents’ descendents (i.e. siblings, nieces, nephew)
· Grandparents and their descendents (i.e. aunts, uncles, cousins)”
Now, I haven’t looked to see what the eligibility requirements were for last year’s “SSDP” status. So perhaps these are totally different! And yet… Is there some other relationship (besides “live in same-sex lover”) that would count as an “OQA”? It specifically excludes family, and anyone who could be married in this state. It specifically excludes simple roommates, since #4-#6 go far beyond splitting the bills.
So really, the upshot is that the University’s pulling a fast one on the whole state – pretending to comply while refusing to do anything different.
But that’s okay, because it’s totally unreasonable for the citizens of a state to decide how its state university should spend its money.
